About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
MSNBCW 9
CNNW 6
KQED (PBS) 2
CNBC 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
MSNBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 21
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)
today, that the supreme court is taking the prop 8 case, the perry case, as well as the doma case. and, you know, look, when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court that in this country we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right, and the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in the history of this country, and i'm optimistic that once the court does hear this case and the doma case, they're going to come down on the side of freedom, liberty, and equality just as they have so many times in our nation's past. >> and equal protection of the laws. elizabeth, thank you for coming on. equal protection of the laws. lib cert a pretty profound notion in this country. >> it is 37. >> pursuit of happiness is our declaration. why not? >> here is the thing, if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. don't we judge, chris, presidents by whether they stand up to the m
. the justices will also review a provision of the federal "defense of marriage act" or doma that deprives legally married gay couples of federal benefits that are available to heterosexual couples. same-sex marriage is legal or will be soon in nine states and the district of columbia. but 31 states have amended their constitutions to bar gay unions. here with us to explain today's development, and where it could lead, is marcia coyle of "the national law journal." welcome back, marcia. >> thanks, marg wet. >> warner: so is it fair to say first of all that the court's decision to hear these first two cases in itself a momentous decision? >> absolutely. a number of gay rights organizations, particularly as if relates to the federal defense of marriage act have been working towards that point. and yes, whatever the court says, if it reaches the merits of these cases will be extremely important. >> warner: let's take them one by one, prop 8 in california first. remind us briefly of how what started out as a state issue ended am in the supreme court. >> the california supreme court a number of
of the arc of history and civil rights, given the fact that they're taking up both doma and prop 8. i wonder where you think roberts fits into all this. >> based on some of the other decisions he has made, i don't think he is quite as conservative as some people think. i think taking up the doma case is really important because we really need to have the defense of marriage act struck down. marriage in the states is great. but at the end of the day, there is an awful lot of benefits that come from the federal tax code, that people who get married need to enjoy if you're going to have a fair and equitable situation in society. so i think they made a big step forward here. and, you know, the court is a hard place to read. unfortunately, it's not like the election. well don't have nate silver to read every morning to tell us how it's going to turn out. but we'll all be watching closely. >> chris, there is a third issue that the justices haven't taken up yet, and that's an arizona law that bars some same-sex spouses from access to state benefits. where do we go on that? what happens to that issu
on the issue of same-sex marriage. the high court decided to hear two cases, one, doma, the defense of marriage act, and the other, a challenge to california's proposition 8 which took away the right for gays and lesbians to legally wed in the state. now the court's expected to hear arguments in march, with a ruling by late june. and the decision to take on the issue comes just weeks after voters in three more states approved same of sex marriage. joining me now, cnn's legal analyst jeffrey toobin. how big is this? put this in perspective. >> huge. this is really a major event in american history, not just court history. same-sex marriage now is at the center of the american legal world. this was a cause that was seen as a fringe issue as recently as the '90s. >> it wasn't even mentioned as a possibility. >> it was not even mentioned. polling has gone from, you know, approximately 20% to 30% support in the '90s. now gallup poll showed 53%. exist polls showed 49%. now ark fears command close to a majority support. and now the supreme court may decide that same-sex marriage will be the law of the
to consider choosing and two prop 8 ones. they have one doma and one prop 8. >> what's fascinating, this is a court that has avoided this issue. it's been pathological. everyone in lawrence v. texas, the opinion was distorted in my ways because of a clear effort not to say anything that would have baring on the same-sex marriage issue. suddenly, they take two issues with the broadest possible front. the question is, what are they going to do and whether they are going to reach an impasse. if there's an impasse, sometimes they go for narrow decisions. there are outs in these cases. both cases have standing issues. questions of whether these are the party that is have a right to bring this type of challenge. the standing issues are particularly prominent in the doma case. the proposition 8 case probably offers the broadest scope for a major ruling. what people, many people hope, is that that would be the case where the court says this violates equal protection. you can't deny these people the same rights of marriage. if it were to do that, then it would effectively set aside 31 state
the federal defense of marriage act, or d doma, and another involving california's proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages in that state. for analysis into these historic cases, what's going to be a historic hearing, i want to bring in kinji yoshityoshito, professor of constitutional law at new york city. great to see you. >> good to see you. >> put prop 8 aside for a second. do you believe that the supreme court will strike down doma. this is what what you've said. walk me through your thinking on that one. >> y bet. so doma is a really narrow challenge insofar as what the statute does is it says for federal purposes marriages are defined between one man and one woman. so i think it might be best to clarify this by example. so you take edie windsor, a plaintiff coming out of new york who's going to be the plaintiff in this case. she was with another woman for 40 years. they got married in 2007. when her partner passed away, her wife passed away, for state purposes, in the eyes of new york state, she was next of kin. so her remains were released to edie. but for federal purposes, they were c
. the other case called windsor versus doma originated in new york and challenges the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act. we're going to talk about this a little bit more this morning, and we'll have our legal contributor paul callan discuss it with us right after this break. i always wait until the last minute. can i still ship a gift in time for christmas? yeah, sure you can. great. where's your gift? uh... whew. [ male announcer ] break from the holiday stress. ship fedex express by december 22nd for christmas delivery. up high! ok. don't you have any usefull apps on that thing? who do you think i am, quicken loans? ♪ at quicken loans, our amazingly useful mortgage calculator app allows you to quickly calculate your mortgage payment based on today's incredibly low interest rates... right from your iphone or android smartphone. one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. ♪ home of the legendary grand prix circuit. the perfect place to bring the all-new cadillac ats to test the 2.0-liter turbo engine. [ engine revs ] ♪ [ derek ] 272 horsepower. the lightest i
when they passed doma into law in 1996. i need to get your immediate reaction to the supreme court news this afternoon. >> well, i think it's very good for the advocates of marriage equality that the court took both of these issues up. the first issue is this question of the defense of marriage act. it was passed really in the middle of the night in 1996 and signed very reluctant lie by president clinton and e sin essentially says one state does not have to recognize the marriage equality rights another state may give. if you are married legally in the state of massachusetts and you happen to reside -- this is as a gay couple -- and you happen to reside in the state of california, the state of california does not need to recognize your massachusetts marriage, and as a result there are over 1,000 benefits that can be denied to a legally married gay couple if they happen to be living in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. my guess is the supreme court will declare that unconstitutional because there is a long tradition under the privileges and immunities clause of the constitutio
. the end of the doma act. how do you see this? >> one of the first things that usually comes to my mind when i think about prop 8 was that you had the people of california, they looked at having this particular law upheld as simply because they're the ones who wanted it to happen. and the courts there decided no forget about it. it's simply not going to happen. not only that but if you remember, the donors who were supporting this law, they had a lot of people come after them during that whole scenario. also remember, a lot of businesses who whether it be say wedding photographers, wedding deejays, bank gbank get hauls wo may not be catering to same-sex marriages, they have been attacked very often by lawsuits because they may not necessarily be catering to same-sex marriages. saw this over in new mexico with elaine photography when a photographer said i don't care to photograph same-sex marriage ended up being sued. this lawsuit is still going on right now. >> jimmy williams, welcome back. just explain to me. i'm sure there's a logic to it. i always look at these things as social issue
as well, as you know, that will be overcome. >> the other case involves doma, defense of marriage act. what's at the heart of that question? >> not the fundamental right of same-sex marriage but whether the federal government can define marriage in a certain way, as between one man and one woman. historically that's been the job of the states to decide what marriage is, to define it. that really is the federal government stepping somewhere where it hasn't before. what they have done with that statute is say people can't have thousands of federal benefits. the case before the supreme court involves a woman who had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes she wouldn't have had to pay just because the person she was married to was the same gender as herself. it's fairness but limbed to that one state. >> patricia, always good to see you. thanks for weighing in. >> thank you. >> the deadline for the fiscal cliff is just over three weeks away. lawmakers are still mired in part in gridlock, each side saying the other is to blame. what do their constituents think? cnbc says 21% would blame the presid
and california's proposition 8. doma denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples while prop 8 makes same-sex marriage illegal in california. same-sex marriages are legal in nine other states and the district of columbia. a decision on these cases is expected sometime in june. >>> korean pop star psy is making headlines for a whole other reason than you might think this morning. his music video may be the most watched video in youtube history, but now an old video from 2004 has surfaced of psy calling for the death of american soldiers in iraq. that performance resurfaced in october. in his apology, psy said his performance had been emotionally charged, and "while i'm grateful for the freedom to express oneself, there are limits. i am deeply sorry for any pain i have caused by those words." he is scheduled to perform at a charity event in washington. president barack obama is also planning on attending that event. >>> speaking of president obama, he's issuing a stern warning to syria. don't even think about using chemical weapons against civilians. i'll talk about the implicati
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)